Each of our (5) winners receives a book published by ILW.COM. If you are a winner and do not receive email from us this week, please contact webmaster@ilw.com to claim your prize. Thanks to all who stopped by our booth and participated in our raffle.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.

Help Wanted: Immigration Paralegal
Los Angeles, CA - Stone & Grzegorek LLP, an immigration law firm in downtown LA, seeks an experienced Paralegal. Candidates should have 5+ years experience in immigration practice. The position requires attention to detail and a team work ethic. Stone & Grzegorek LLP offers work in a pleasant environment with a supportive team and excellent compensation and benefits plan. Please submit your resume to Candice@lskglaw.com.

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
San Bernardino, CA - USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC) seeks an experienced attorney for the position of Associate Regional Counsel, USCIS OCC, Western Region.
Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, serving as an attorney providing on-site legal advice to the local District Office USCIS personnel on issues involving immigration related adjudications, inadmissibility and deportability grounds, and national security, providing litigation support to U.S. Attorneys' Offices on cases arising from local District adjudications, consulting with USCIS; responding to inquiries from the private sector; providing legal opinions on cases involving criminal aliens; and preparing USCIS' brief to the BIA on visa petition appeals. J.D. degree, active bar membership, and 2+ years of post J.D. experience required. Immigration law experience, background in federal litigation, excellent academic record, and strong writing skills preferred.
For full details enter COU-CIS-2008-0008 here. Applicants must submit (1) resume , (2) writing sample (10 pps. max), (3) references, (4) cover letter to Kelli.Duehning@dhs.gov. All submissions must be received by close of business on August 8, 2008. GS-13/14/15, position open until filled. No relocation allowance offered.

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Dallas, TX - USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC) seeks an experienced attorney for the position of Service Center Counsel at the Texas Service Center.
Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, providing legal advice to the TSC personnel on issues involving immigration related adjudications, inadmissibility and deportability grounds, and national security, writing visa appeal briefs and providing litigation support to the U.S. Attorney's office on cases arising
from Service Center adjudications. Applicants must possess a J.D. degree, be an active member of the bar (any jurisdiction) and have at least one year of post J.D. experience and be a US citizen. Need to complete a background security investigation
before being appointed.
For full details enter COU-CIS-2008-0007 here. Applicants must submit (1) resume , (2) writing sample (10 pps. max), (3) references, (4) cover letter to William.Craig@dhs.gov. All submissions must be received by close of business on August 8, 2008. GS-13-15, position open until filled. No relocation allowance offered.

J-1 Visa Program
Discover the ease and flexibility of the J-1 Trainee visa with AIESEC United States. For 50 years, AIESEC U.S. has offered foreign nationals the opportunity to grow both personally and professionally by sponsoring exchange visitor traineeships. Enjoy unparalleled customer service, including in-depth guidance on J-1 Trainee visa regulations and the changes effective July 2007. We also offer logistical and cultural reception services in locations nationwide. Expect a 24-48 hr. application processing time. The J-1 Trainee visa can be used for individuals to participate in training programs in the following fields: information media and communications, education, social sciences, library science, counseling and social services, management, business, commerce and finance, the sciences, engineering, architecture, mathematics and industrial occupations, public administration, and law. Attorneys interested in learning more about AIESEC United States and the J-1 Trainee visa, please email Melany Hamner: MelanyH@aiesecus.org.

New Immigration Strategy - Deport Yourself
Myers told the network that "Operation Scheduled Departure" will allow illegal immigrants without criminal records a chance to literally "self-deport" by turning themselves in to her agents.

Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or fewer at no charge), email: editor@ilw.com. Readers interested in learning about featuring your event or conference in Immigration Daily, see here. To feature your newsletter in Immigration Daily, see here.

Readers are welcome to share their comments, email: editor@ilw.com (300-words or fewer preferred). Many letters to the Editor refer to past correspondence, available in our archives.

Dear Editor:
Reading Victor Gomez Llanos' letter (07/29/2008 ID) almost makes me feel Jim Roberts' letter's predictions about Azatlan may be correct, and that Viva La Raza is still alive and prospering. Perhaps it is, if Mr. Gomez Llanos' point of view is correct. One wonders whether the letter writer read the letter before sending it for publication. David Utterback's letter claims ((07/29/2008 ID), "Illegals do not have 1st amendment rights because they are not covered under the U.S.constitution, but they are felons. Criminals have no constitutional rights as do lawful citizens." Of course, these statements are not only false, but patently absurd. Any lawyer reading such nonsense will immediately understand. This type of nonsense adds nothing to the the immigration debate, and serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever. ID now has more than 30,000 daily readers; surely there are a couple more people out there who have something intelligent to contribute on the subject of immigration reform, lest the Letters to the Editor section wither and die on the vine.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA

Dear Editor:
I was absolutely thrilled and at the same time found myself disturbed when reading the Consular interview. (07/29/08 ID Article)
It really concerns me the concept of the US Government "screening and vetting" foreign national spouses.
I appreciate the fact we do not want to allow in a known criminal or terrorist that is what name check is for.
The comments made regarding the feeling there should be more restrictions on certain visa categories because
they are frequently in his judgement abused raised red flags with me.
In the context of a US Citizen spouse visa I would love to hear future interviewers comment on this article I found
on msclaw.com website. I got a particular kick out of the comments in that article regarding age difference, marriageable age and the
lack of a "formal wedding". Getting married at the justice of the peace apparently is a "red flag" issue. Having read
the article if what the author says is true, USCIS offcers judge these items.. I would like to know if any attorney
or past USCIS adjudicator would agree with this assessment and if in fact these "red flags" are just a gut feeling
or have been consolidated in a manual somewhere.
I think we really need to share this "government vetting of spouses" with all Americans not just those married to
Foreign nationals. It would probably cut down on divorces if government goons "judged" marriages for bona fide
intentions, and made sure know one looked suspicious. Could they be marrying for money? Withhold marriage
licenses or refuse to approve them in a timely manner. Request countless additional documents. Yes I think
this would be good for other Americans.

Janet Fitzgerald

Dear Editor:
I would like to know your opinion about de Voluntary Departure Program, which recently began again. I really concern because this is an ironically action of two governments. In one hand, the US government kept law enforcement like the only one mean to stop undocumented immigrants to traspass the borderline, and in the other one, the Mexican government support that policy to avoid solve the problem of mexican emigration in our territory. Then, the program is not a "Voluntary" action; it is an international policy that violates many international treaties and agreements signed by both countries. As an academic-researcher on international migration I think that both countries are violating migrants human rights. Is there any act or legislation that protect migrants? Because the way this program works has many negative implications. For instance, the second time that undocumented immigrant is caught, means a felony. So the immigrant could be put in jail.

Carlos Enrique Tapia

Dear Editor:
My comments regarding "Its a War on Immigrants" (07/17/08 ID Comment) are that perhaps there were just too many illegal immigrants invading our country. What needs to be done is work on the Mexican government who apparently is failing to take care of their citizens, so they head North.
I feel the finding and arresting of these illegal immigrants will continue to increase because the mission is to stop that many people from entering our borders.
I feel compassion for these people, coming from all countries, not only Mexicans, but the bottom line is that we, American citizens must secure our borders for our sake. Such is the World we live in. There are people out there that want to destroy US, therefore we must defend ourselves.

Emilio Decker Jr

Dear Editor:
With all due respect, how can Immigration Daily ask its readers to forward its pages to friends (07/25/08 ID Comment) when The Editor never responds to questions or suggestions sent to him. I have sent almost 5 emails asking for data that your staff must have or made suggestions to defend illegals from the villanious accusations made by anti-illegal immigration people, but I never get any replies. I probably won't get any reply this time either.
I am on your side, but it appears this is just another bureacratic effort without any teeth to it.
I may unsubscribe if no change is made.

Emilio Decker Jr

Editor's note: There are two issues here. 1) We published letters from Mr. Decker (02/07/08 ID and 11/14/07 ID). One of them was responded to by another reader in a later issue. Unfortunately, sometimes correspondence does end up in the junk mail folder and with over 1000 emails a day, we somtimes miss spotting it. That's what happened with Mr. Decker's email dated 07/17/08 which appears immediately above this letter. 2) The letters to the editor section is a community section, just like ComingsNGoings. Our contributions in this section are usually not substantive. In this, we conform to customary practice for newspapers including legal newspapers.

Dear Editor:
Bruce A. Hake, Esq.'s letter (07/30/08 ID) used the terminology "anti-foreigner bigots" in apparent reference to persons who have expressed a disdain for illegal immigration and those individuals who have chosen to violate our laws in order to join our society. Would the letter also castigate persons who choose to denounce burglars, housebreakers, and other such lawbreakers by referring to the critics of those lawbreakers as "anti-lawbreakers" or some such ridiculous moniker? Why is it that some in the "legal profession", especially those belonging to the so-called "immigration bar" seem to feel that their so-called clients' lawbreaking should not be seen as such and denounced for what it is? This "Nation of Immigrants" was rightly populated by persons who entered in accordance with existing immigration law.
Times may have changed, circumstances now make access to the US much easier, but we continue to be a nation of laws, and we do have a legal code by which people like my in-laws are waiting in Mexico City to obtain US government approval and permission to legally enter into our Nation of Immigrants. Obeying existing immigration law would be the greatest demonstration of immigrants' fitness to join this experiment called the United States of America, a nation of laws.

J. E. Smith
Brunswick, GA

Dear Editor:
Illegal immigrants may be lawbreakers but they aren't the same as rapists nor thiefs. A black African American sitting on white only section on public buses during the segregration apartheid policy in the past, may have broken that law but he's not a criminal, today he will be called as a hero for fighting for African Americans' civil and equal rights.
Breaking unjust laws may make ones got punished by fines or even jail time. Women who break sexist Catholic laws serving as ministers may be excommunicated by the Pope, but it doesn't make them as criminals, for me and many they're actually heroes in fighting for equal opportunity and right and to reform outdated, absurd and religious laws and dogmas. I don't see anything wrong for women and even gays to serve God. I don't see any reasons of why gays can legally and equally get married either. It's none of the State and my business to interfere on somebody elses' privacy and morality as long as they don't bother others' rights. The nativists here whether or not they want to admit, this endless debate is about fear of competition. Zero immigration and 100% isolationism may become nativists' dream but it doesn't mean they can avoid global competition and expect consumers in general to pay extra for "who cares, I don't cares and take it for granted attitudes" because they want to impose labor monopoly on the market and limit our choices to shop for better deals.

Robert Yang

Dear Editor:
Regarding Tuesday's Comment and Letters (7/29/08 ID), I have no problem
with the the "Mills of God" title although those weary of hearing about
God or declared atheists may. My beef is with ID's conclusion that the
Ramos and Campean decision is an example of "law and order" rather than
the "systematic bias" by the globalist Bush agenda to neuter our borders
and those who enforce them. This travesty of justice has been
orchestrated and the Supremes may have the final say. Why was the drug
dealer who was shot given immunity for testimony and not the agents? Why
was the jury not informed that he was a criminal dealer who continued
to run them during and after the trial? These are critical decisions
that changed the trial parameters against the agents and has nothing to
do with justice or the "Mills". Why would ID rejoice in the persecuting
of those who protect US? The David Utterback letter is correct in
referencing the Christian nature of the founding of America. The
so-called separation of state doctrine only precludes infringing laws
upon religion, not it's prohibition or belief in God. The V.G. Llanos
letter believes that with 15 to 20 illegal and plenty of legal Latinos
here now that we need more. Rather the opposite is true and we need to
follow Mexico's example with harsh entry policies including the
requirement that all local police assist in enforcing the laws against
illegals who are treated with far less hospitality than illegals here.
The "nightmare" that the letter writes is just long overdue enforcement
and the "prosecution" of all those who break our entry and other laws
are the just result of their criminal actions. God Bless America, Heaven
knows we need it.

Jim Roberts

An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney. Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM. Send correspondence and articles to editor@ilw.com. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM.